BF2S Forums gaming nic

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Define "decent"

"Intel NIC decent". A solid Ethernet chip with hardware management of pretty much everything, unlike Realtek, Broadcom etc, who tend to just load everything off on the CPU. In my experience with Intel NICs, I've gotten much closer to Gb speeds than with other chips. Mainstream Broadcoms tend to get ~30MB/s, while as my Intel gets ~50MB/s (that's just using shitty Windows file sharing, haven't really done any serious benchmarking) with 1/10th of the CPU utilization. They're also a lot less sensitive to interference. My integrated NIC and some half-cheap Gb card I have (Broadcom) tend to go unstable when I start stuff like large transformers close to the cables. That is not the case when using Intel in both ends.

This is however just judging from some specs and my own experience with consumer-grade stuff. I don't know that much about the higher-end products.

If you think you need to pay $130 for a NIC that can handle line speed, you're getting ripped off. Chipsets are hit and miss with any manufacturer. I've had cheap Marvell boards outperform expensive Intel boards while point to point flooding 64 byte UDP datagrams, and I have a relatively new box with a high-end Intel NIC in my data center that refuses to transfer more than ~650Mbps across a 1Gbps link. Intel do make many good chipsets, but if you're paying $130 for a regular NIC for your desktop computer, you're insane. There's also an overwhelming chance that the interfaces on your gateway or CPE are 10/100 ports, completely defeating the point in the first place.

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

If you think you need to pay $130 for a NIC that can handle line speed, you're getting ripped off. Chipsets are hit and miss with any manufacturer. I've had cheap Marvell boards outperform expensive Intel boards while point to point flooding 64 byte UDP datagrams, and I have a relatively new box with a high-end Intel NIC in my data center that refuses to transfer more than ~650Mbps across a 1Gbps link. Intel do make many good chipsets, but if you're paying $130 for a regular NIC for your desktop computer, you're insane. There's also an overwhelming chance that the interfaces on your gateway or CPE are 10/100 ports, completely defeating the point in the first place.

I haven't paid $130 for any NIC in my house. $130 comes from internet prices for Intel's most basic "server NIC" with some super mega management features and what not. My Intel Gb card was ~40€ a while ago, and my Intel Gb cards for my server were 25 a piece.

Try reading that part of my post again.

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

And how do you mean I would get 50 or even 30MB/s over 100Mb?

What on Earth are you talking about?

mikkel wrote:

There's also an overwhelming chance that the interfaces on your gateway or CPE are 10/100 ports, completely defeating the point in the first place.

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Try reading that part of my post again.

Eh?

Try a third time if you must.

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

And how do you mean I would get 50 or even 30MB/s over 100Mb?

What on Earth are you talking about?

mikkel wrote:

There's also an overwhelming chance that the interfaces on your gateway or CPE are 10/100 ports, completely defeating the point in the first place.

I suggest you look up "CPE" and "gateway" in the context of access layer networking. Hint: They don't mean "Freezer7Pro's switched network."

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

I got it like you were saying that something in my network is limiting me to 100Mb. The only 100Mb link in my network is between my router/server and my modem, which is connected to a shitty ADSL line, which obviously is far from even 100Mb. Internally, everything is Gb.

Or did you mean it as in general, and that most people have a 100Mb switch, or what?

I mean in the context of the question steelie posed. As far as latency goes, achieving wirespeed on a gigabit connection is more or less completely irrelevant when all but a tiny fraction of people terminate in a 10/100 port on their CPE, as pretty much any chip you can find nowadays does wirespeed 100Mbps.

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I mean in the context of the question steelie posed. As far as latency goes, achieving wirespeed on a gigabit connection is more or less completely irrelevant when all but a tiny fraction of people terminate in a 10/100 port on their CPE, as pretty much any chip you can find nowadays does wirespeed 100Mbps.

Oh. I didn't realize you changed context in the middle of your post.

Fortunately, I didn't. If you read it again, you'll see that at the end of my post, I presented the argument as one that would negate the purpose of wirespeed gigabit NICs "in the first place." It's not that difficult.

Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2009-04-18 12:33:47)

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Fortunately, I didn't. If you read it again, you'll see that at the end of my post, I presented the argument as one that would negate the purpose of wirespeed gigabit NICs "in the first place." It's not that difficult.

It's still looks like you're talking to me. "In the first place" doesn't necessarily mean that you're talking about everyone.

When I say "there's also an overwhelming chance that the interfaces on your gateway or CPE are 10/100 ports", what sort of sample size do you think I'm using to arrive at a certainty that isn't binary? Your specific case, or the typical scenario?

I'm glad we cleared this up.

.Sup wrote:

This has be proven to be pretty much worthless over the integrated chips a while ago. Only Tiger direct is praising killerNIC in their video reviews, no surprise there...